There are no technicalities or marriages that "count" more than others. You are perfectly within your rights to have a second wedding and to make it as big (or small) as you like, and to invite whomever you wish.
The people who love you won't care that it's not your first wedding.
People who love you just want to see you happy. Go with the choice that you don't think you'd regret 40 years from now. And don't let people bully you.
My view is that one has to focus on the admirable or worthwhile aspects of a person in order to avoid developing a runaway attitude problem which can lead to dislike or hatred. It is often easier to dislike than to find positive qualities.
I was lucky to find a father of two, with two failed relationships behind him, after two similar trainwrecks of my own. So I feel you are not beyond hope at all; while the innocence of youth may not return, yet there is much more to be savoured.
When my second husband and I were planning our wedding party, we decided that we wanted to make it about family. We wanted to include everyone.
We had a much larger wedding party than I would have ever expected to have, but everyone was happy to be included.
We had 4 Bridesmaid, 4 Groomsmen, 1 Jr. Bridesmaid, 1 Jr. Groomsman, 2 flower girls, 2 ring bearers, and we had a kid walk down the aisle with a sign saying "here comes the bride."
We had about 80-90 people at our wedding. I'm and only child, but my husband has 4 sisters. One I've never met and another one I met about a month before the wedding, so they were not in the wedding party.
But his other two sisters that I had known for most of our relationship were two of my bridesmaids.
At first I think we all felt a little uncomfortable because we weren't close. They turned out to be a tremendous source of comfort and help form me. By the time my wedding rolled around I considered both of them as not only friends, but sisters as well. I am soooo glad that I did that. But that is just my personal experience.
My husband has a very close knit family. Ultimately, you know your friends and family and you have to make the best decision for your wedding.
We had a beautiful bridal shower as a couple, which I guess is called a wedding shower. His sister-in-law from his first marriage threw it for us and it was a blast. Who ever said that getting remarried was hard was crazy. We had a beautiful wedding shower which was a highlight in and of itself.
He and I had a mini discussion about getting her a gift and the popular opinion for gifts were:
- Gift card to a spa (for a massage or facial, something like that)
- Gift card to a nail salon (for mani/pedi or something similar)
- Bottle of wine that the hostess likes
- Gift certificate for a restaurant the hostess likes
I think there were one or two more suggestions but those are the ones I remember.
I think it kinda depends on who it is and even how elaborate/ big the event is. Something as simple as a nice candle and handwritten thank you can be enough.
Honestly I don't think that she would have let anyone else do it. She was so set on the bridal shower that it would have broken her heart to skip on her offer. She is such a beautiful woman. She is about ten years older than I am, but she is sto spunky and full of life I feel like we are sisters. Even though that is not the case.
She even gave him her grandmother's ring as my wedding ring. This was such a beautiful gesture. I mean they were technically no longer "family" in the sense that they had lost a wife/sister and it was heartbreaking for them both.
I really find the ring to be a one of a kind gift.
You can find them if you look. Have a look at vintage or antique rings. You can get loads of gorgeous 1950s/1960s rings that are stylish, won't break the bank and quite possibly won't have the bad juju you might be worried about.
Personally I love the idea of a ring that, even for a while, brought a couple a huge amount of happiness and joy and that I am part of something with history. If it's bad history then you're just giving the ring another shot at being a "forever ring".
I'd recommend two episodes that aren't very 'canon':
Jose Chung's From Outer Space. This is one of my all-time favorite X-files episodes and actually serves as a good introduction to the main characters because it portrays them so broadly.
Musings of a Cigarette-Smoking Man.
This is the questionably accurate backstory of a supporting character and doesn't really include the main characters except as bookends. However, it perfectly captures the general tone of the series.
In terms of 'watching every episode', X-files was shot before the current trend of overarching plots. Until Gillian Anderson (the actress, not the character Dana Scully) got pregnant (season 2), it was a pure monster-of-the-week series.
From that point on, the X-files alternated 'mythology' episodes with 'monster-of-the-week' episodes. So there are a lot of episodes you can miss without missing the overall story. The 'overall story' is also less cohesive than a Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones - it tends to be presented as a series of mysteries that never get solved, so don't expect a tight resolution pulling from every little crazy event they experience.
Some of the best episodes are difficult to jump straight into because they require greater knowledge of Scully and Mulder's character development, but my personal favorite standalone episodes are the comedic ones like "Bad Blood" and "Humbug", and other memorable ones like "Post-Modern Prometheus" and "Milagro".
I hope you love the show! Despite having seen many others after it, The X Files remains my single favorite TV show.
I'd highly recommend listening to The X-Files Files podcast along with your re-watch. Its hosted by comedian/actor Kumail Nanjiani, who is a long-time X-Files fan.
He has celebrity guests, as well as people who worked on the X-Files, come on the podcast and they talk about 2 episodes of the show each. He's on Season 5 now, but all of the old episodes are available.
Its a great way to hear some discussion about the episodes if you're re-watching on your own, as its difficult to discuss with people who haven't watched the episode you just did in 20 years. Plus he gives you a bit of a heads up on some of the less-good episodes, so you can either skip them outright or go in with lower expectations.
If you just want to see all the crazy monster of the week episodes, start with Home off of season 4. The great Mutato off season 5. But if you want to actually follow the story line start from episode 1. They usually make the seasons with about 6 episodes about the story arch and the rest of the episodes of monsters if the week, which have nothing to do with the main story line.
The first season is kinda slow but the first 2 episodes set up the whole series. In the middle of the seasons they have the monster of the week episodes, and some of them are better than some story arch episodes. But if you get into it don't watch the first movie until you finished the 5th season, watch it before you start the 6th season.
The rest of the series makes more sense.
My wedding was beautiful and it was an amazing event to share with my husband, but it was a sad spot to not have a big social group there. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not a terribly social person and prefer to have a couple of close friends only.
The wedding was literally the only time it bothered me, and that night was about us committing to each other. It's easy to get caught up in the party and having a row of lovely friends as bridesmaids, and tables of college friends reminiscing about your past, and photos of a big crowd celebrating.
You'll remember your wedding as being a really intimate event with people very close to you, and it will be awesome.
Basically, his family was just closer (both geographically and in tightness) and he grew up with 6 of his cousins in the city where we got married. My extended family was more spread out and in somewhat less favorable financial position. But I honestly was never that close to any of them.
And his cousins have always been wonderful to me.
Even now remarried.
Here is what I learned. Don't worry about it too much....I know you feel kind of left out, since you won't have any to invite, but look on the bright side:
Less guests = cheaper wedding! You still have your family to accommodate, and weddings by themselves are expensive enough. I don't have many friends myself and doubt I'll be inviting them to my wedding....my family is too huge, it would bankrupt me. I also want to eliminate all of the bridesmaids except the maid of honor, who would be my sister. With less guests, you'll save on EVERYTHING all around....less invitations to make, smaller reception costs, you won't have to deal with picking dresses for bridesmaids that look good on everyone, don't have to buy them flowers for the aisle, etc.
Less guests = less drama; especially if you are worried that inviting non-close friends would lead them to feel awkward or judge you. You don't need that at your wedding! Weddings are stressful enough without that shit. You'll be much happier with the more intimate affair of people whom you truly like having around.
I've thought about this question quite a lot.
I sometimes think that marriage is a sort of practice ground for the sort of love that we ought to have for every human being that we meet. But having that sort of love, compassion, trust, and devotion for everyone...well, that's pretty darn impossible, at least for us earthly human beings.
So we pick one person to devote ourselves to, one person to practice that all-consuming, all-encompassing love that sees another through sickness and health, life and death.
I suspect that all of those memories of building that love together, all of that joy that you found in each other, and all of that happiness that you had in learning how to love one another...that'll all be there when you get to heaven. It's just that, instead of being focused inward on just the two of you, all of that joy and love will also be turned outward so that you can share that love with everyone. You know those couples who alienate the rest of their friends and just make goo-goo eyes at one another and sort of create this wall around just the two of them? That's not the sort of love that's raised up again in heaven. But how about those couples who just seem to breath love and life into everyone they meet; they're the glue that holds large friend groups together, that welcomes strangers into their homes, that make others feel included and loved without ever needing to go around flaunting their married status----that's the sort of marriage that's heaven bound, I think.
In the bible story, I think Jesus was shooting down the question of ownership and belonging (especially considering the time period he spoke in. The Saduccees basically wanted to know who got to lay claim to the woman. They never brought love into the equation). In a heavenly community, people simply aren't worried about who belongs to who....I think he means that we'll all be so caught up in the joy of that new life that whether some woman belongs to this man or that man won't be an issue.
I don't know if any of that makes sense but, basically: it's not like heaven would erase the fact that you spent a lifetime building a love between you and your spouse. It's just that "who belongs to who" won't be an issue any longer.
I married my soulmate.
They were a wonderful person that is completely irreplaceable. I'm learning that I have to create a new life now. To me that means I will still find another wonderful woman and love them, not as a replacement, but as someone completely different. I think that I will probably end up with a widow as they will most likely understand and know what I've been through.
The role of a step parent in the life of a child after the parent dies is an area where there is little remedy, much to the unhappiness of some step-parents and step-children who have built a relationship with each other only to find that relationship goes largely unrecognized by courts.
In most cases when one of divorced parents dies, the remaining parent assumes full custody of the child or children and the opportunity for the widowed step parent to see the children depends on the willingness of the remaining parent (which is obviously complicated, even in amicable divorces).
But there are legal ways around it.
Need to take your stepchild to the doctor? Have both parents sign a form. File it with the doctor, and carry one on you. Keep in mind that no emergency department will refuse treatment to a child just because their parents aren't there. Just check the doctor's policy first. My stepson has one doctor that requires a new note signed by one parent for every visit, specifying the date.
You can sign some things for the school, like that you reviewed homework or an exam or something. Anyone can do that. It's not a legal document. But if it's a class trip or some other legal form, just have your spouse sign it.
You can't sign releases for sports or things like that, but after the initial one is signed, send in another letter allowing others to act in the event that a parent cannot be contacted.
Schools usually have spaces where a parent can designate others to pick up their kid or receive information. Make sure your name is on that form.
Between grandparents and stepparents, there are plenty of people who are the primary caregivers of children who are not legally theirs.
I'm the primary caregiver to my stepson.
Wednesday, I have to take him for an eye exam. I have a form signed by both his parents allowing me to bring him in for a regular check-up. They'll check his vision, but if they wanted to advise something extra (like dilation or something), they wouldn't let me authorize it. He also has baseball twice this week. I didn't sign the waiver for participation (that was my husband), but there's nothing illegal about being the one who brings him to practice.
Of course, this is a lot easier considering that all three of us are on the same page about this. If we need both parents' signatures, it's not a problem.
Scully believes the key to true understanding is through science. She also doesn’t have the luxury to believe what comes easiest, as she needs to be able to explain it in her reports to their superiors. My answer is two-fold. One, is who Scully is as an individual.
Two, is who Scully is within the bureau.
We’ll start with childhood Dana growing up with an older sister who was very new-agey. Melissa Scully loves mysticism. I am willing to believe there was some sibling rivalry growing up in the Scully household, that led Dana to reject the things that Missy loved – starting Dana down her path of “hard science”.
She then studied sciences in school, where she learned not only how many things work, but about how many things we don’t yet understand. Much of science is still in the “we don’t really understand why this works yet, but it’s a large area of research in the community”. So Scully’s studies would have taught her that “just because we don’t understand how something works yet, doesn’t mean we can’t figure it out”. Scully herself often says in her reports that although science cannot yet explain what she has seen, she believes it is the way to understand what happened. For example at the end of Teliko, she writes: My conviction remains intact that that the mechanism by which Aboah killed and in turn survived, can only be explained by medical science, and that science will eventually discover his place in the broader context of evolution. She never denounces what she’s seen as absurd, but she isn’t going to say that it’s supernatural, either. Just a piece of science that we don’t yet understand. It's not that Scully doesn't believe. In the Pilot Mulder asks her if she believes in aliens. And her response is not “aliens are ridiculous”.
Her response is, ”Given the distances needed to travel from the far reaches of space, the energy requirements would exceed a spacecraft's capabilties th.
”. Her answer speaks to an understanding of space travel, and the probability of habitable planets besides our own. It also says, she’s given it thought, and with our current understanding of space travel requirements, and distances between habitable planets, it would be highly unlikely that aliens would come to Earth on a regular basis, if at all.
Episode after episode, Mulder will spout some theory, which is correct, but sounds insane, and Scully’s first response is often “Is that what you are want me to write in my report?” or “Is that what you are going to tell Skinner?”
Scully knows where the X-Files stands within the bureau. They are considered a joke by some of their peers, and a threat that needs to be portrayed as a joke by others. She knows she was assigned to the X-Files to repudiate what Mulder believes. So she knows she needs to find evidence to substantiate their claims.
She has to report on their work, and she needs to prove why what they believe is rational. Mulder loves jumping in, without worrying about rationality. He doesn’t care if something makes sense or not. He’s more of a “seeing is believing”. But Scully knows that when they write a report, to others who weren’t there to see it, they need evidence to explain what was seen. “You should have been there” won’t cut it. An example of Scully’s belief in contrast to Mulder: Think of the episode Tooms. Scully knows what Toom’s is capable of, because he distorted his body to squeeze through her apartment vents and attack her. But when they show up at his probation hearing Mulder starts talking about how Tooms was squeezing through tiny tubes and killing people to eat their livers. The court basically treats Mulder like a crazy person, and releases Tooms.
After the hearing, Scully says to Mulder “Do you know what you sounded like, in there?” His response was “I don’t care what I sounded like, as long as I told the truth. ” – Okay, well that’s all well-and-good Mulder, but maybe if you told the truth in a manner that didn’t sound unfounded and irrational, Tooms wouldn’t have been let out to kill more people!
This is why you need science: to show, not tell others what is the truth.
Scully believes many of the same things as Mulder, but needs understanding. If you understand the “why”, then you can explain it to others, without sounding crazy.
There's a fan theory that I subscribe to that for every paranormal alien/monster/whathaveyou case they go on, there's 10 they go on where it turns out Scully is right and everything is more or less normal and explained.
They just don't show those cases on tv.
I love that theory and it can be applied to most tv shows.
We only get to see the interesting bits, the boring day to say stuff isn't really seen at all.
We got a glimpse of that in the episode (can't recall title ), where Mulder keeps repeating the same day.
He was going about normal, boring business and a got a glimpse because wierd shit started happening. But he does go to the bank, and they have boring meetings, they're just boring.
Her science often saves them, like when they get stuck on that ship in the ice and have to drink tuna can juice. Her scientific medical log of that trip helped the doctors treat their weird as hell symptoms. She basically keeps them alive.
Several MOTW were solved or lead to add'l motives/clues by Scully's background in science and medicine and it has saved them in many situations.
Definitely the paranormal and intangible cases (such as telekinesis or spirits) are harder to solve. But "monsters" with mutations, physical abnormalities she could crack through. She was a whiz... didn't really need to go back to a reference book. She just rattled off some chemistry jargon and it helped the case along.
When you get to the T1000 years, isn't she right because Dogget is now the skeptic? For example, coincidentally, she thinks someone is a metal man and Dogget tells her that kind of thing only happens in movies. Then it turns out he was indeed a metal man.